Great question, Yumna. From a journalistic perspective, I can merely report the "facts" and take everything at face-value. That might mean I take what is fed to me by powerful elites, politicians, and corporate CEOs. The information I would share in that case would not necessarily be in the best interest of the public. On the other hand, I could question the information, interrogate it and it's sources, and provide the public with a more critical perspective which challenges the power dynamics of our society. When I first started as a journalist, I thought being objective was the only legitimate way for us to approach our profession. The problem with that is it doesn't account for much of the reason journalism became a profession in the first place: to critique the status quo.